Republic of the Philippines electrocuted by the high speed sewing

SUPREME COURT machine which had been assigned to her by

Manila the private respondent.

SECOND DIVISION Thus, on July 18, 1980, the petitioner filed an

action for damages against private respondent
G.R. No. 72827 July 18, 1989 based on quasi-delict.

LUCIA EUROPA (Mother of Deceased Summons, together with a copy of the

Lucrecia Europa), petitioner, complaint, was served on its production
vs. manager, Mr. Simplicio A. Garcia.
HUNTER GARMENTS MFG. (PHIL.) INC. and
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE No answer to the complaint was ever filed.
COURT, respondents. Thus, private respondent was declared in
default and the petitioner was allowed to
Remedial Law; Jurisdiction; Private present evidence ex parte.
respondent certainly submitted to the
jurisdiction of the Court when it filed a On April 8, 1981, the trial court rendered
motion for reconsideration of the judgment, the dispositive portion of which
judgment by default and a motion to reads;
admit answer.—Assuming arguendo that the
court below originally did not acquire WHEREFORE, the plaintif
jurisdiction over the private respondent, the having established her cause of
latter certainly submitted to it when private action, judgment is rendered
respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of against the defendant
the judgment by default and a motion to admit corporation ordering the latter
answer on the ground of excusable negligence. to pay the plaintif the
Therefore, the lower court’s denial of both following:
motions is binding on private respondent.

Civil Law; Damages; Quasi-delict; In a) for the death of Lucrecia, the

actions based on quasi-delict, all sum of P12,000.00;
damages for the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission b) for actual expenses for the
complained of are recoverable.—In actions wake, the funeral and burial
based on quasi-delict as in this case, all expenses and other
damages for the natural and probable miscellaneous expenses, the
consequences of the act or omission sum of P5,580.00;
complained of are recoverable.
c) for loss of income, the sum
PARAS, J.: of P30,000.00;

This is a petition for certiorari to annul the d) for moral damages, the sum
Court of Appeals decision which set aside the of P10,000.00;
order of default and judgment by default
rendered by the Court of First Instance of Rizal e) for attorney's fees, the sum
Branch XIII in Civil Case No. 37848 for of P5,000.00; and pay the
Damages. costs. (p. 39, Rollo)

The facts of the case are briefly as follows: Private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid decision and a
In 1973, the petitioner's daughter, Lucrecia motion to admit answer, alleging its failure to
Europa, was employed as sample maker by the seasonably file an answer was due to the
private respondent Hunter Garments excusable negligence of Ms. Lilia Jimenez, the
Manufacturing (Philippines) Incorporated. production manager's secretary, who failed to
Sometime during the course of her forward the summons and the copy of the
employment, or on March 9, 1978, Lucrecia got complaint to the company president, despite
instructions to do so by her superior. The trial
court denied both motions.
Thus, private respondent appealed to the Court
of Appeals, assigning the following errors:
The Honorable Court, a quo,
erred in not ruling that
defendant-appellant's failure to
seasonably file its Answer was
due to excusable negligence;
The Honorable Court, a quo,
erred in declaring defendant-
appellant in default and in
allowing plaintif-appellee to
present her evidence ex
parte despite the fact that
summons had not been
properly served; and
Assuming, arguendo, that the
Honorable Court, a quo, had
validly acquired jurisdiction
over the person of defendant-
appellant, it erred in rendering
a decision which is not
supported by law and the facts
of the case. (p. 42, Rollo)
Finding that the trial court never acquired
jurisdiction over the person of private
respondent as summons was improperly
served (the production manager not being the
same "manager" referred to in Section 13 Rule
14 of the Revised Rules of Court for purposes of
service of summons upon a domestic private
corporation), the Court of Appeals set aside the
default order and judgment by default and
directed the trial court to conduct further
proceedings for the adjudication of the case.
(p. 22, Rollo)
The petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid decision but
the same was denied.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.
There is merit in this petition. Assuming
arguendo that the court below originally did
not acquire jurisdiction over the private
respondent, the latter certainly submitted to it
when private respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration of the judgment by default and
a motion to admit answer on the ground of
excusable negligence. Therefore, the lower
court's denial of both motions is binding on
private respondent. (Soriano vs. Palacio, 12
SCRA 449).
Private respondent likewise appealed from the
judgment by default, thus, We shall proceed to
review the evidence presented and the
propriety of damages awarded by the lower
court.
The evidence on record discloses that on March
9, 1978, Lucrecia Europa was electrocuted by
the sewing machine owned by private
respondent. The autopsy conducted by Dr.
Nieto M. Salvador confirmed that Lucrecia died
from "shock probably secondary to
electrocution" (Annex "A" of the complaint).
The facts and circumstances of the case point
to the reasonableness of the damages
awarded. There is an express finding of gross
negligence on the part of private respondent in
the judgment of the lower court, thus:
... There are at least two
incidents, according to De la
Cruz, where high speed sewing
machines of the defendant
corporation were grounded.
These incidents were brought
to the attention of the
management of the defendant
corporation. Apparently,
nothing was done by way of
checking these grounded
machines.
At one time, Fornoza claimed
that when her machine was
grounded and she complained
about it, she was told by the
management to get out of
there.' The defendant
corporation does not employ a
duly-licensed electrical
engineer but only has three (3)
electricians whose services
clearly proved inadequate for
maintaining the safety of the
machines in the factory.
There is no indication that the
management had ever shown
any serious concern for the
safety of those operating said
machines. As it was, the
defendant corporation even
tended to be apathetic to the
plight of its employees
 manning the factory sewing
machines....

If the machines were frequently

and regularly checked or
properly maintained, the death
of Lucrecia by electrocution
would surely not have come to
pass, ... (p. 2, Decision).

In actions based on quasi-delict as in this case,

all damages for the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission
complained of are recoverable. (Article 2202 of
the New Civil Code).

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of

Appeals is hereby set aside and the decision of
the lower court is hereby reinstated except that
the indemnity for the death itself is increased
to Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairperson), Padilla,

Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.